it was rejected by the Senate, reportedly because of the objections of one senator, preventing it from becoming a law.

According to insiders, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam – Fazl senator Maulana Muhammad Sherani (presently the chairman of the Council of Islamic Ideology) had objected that the bill was not ‘male-friendly’ and was contradictory to Islamic law.

Later, the Council of Islamic Ideology also termed the bill “unnecessary”, adding that the implementation of this law would increase the rate of divorce in the country.

In other words, the law might make it possible for women to divorce men who beat them up, and that would be bad, so the law must not be passed, because women have to stay with men who beat them up.

It’s interesting that the Council of Islamic Ideology wants to go on the record as thinking that women should not be allowed to leave men who beat them up.

14 Responses to “The bill was not ‘male-friendly’”

In a literal sense, I suppose he is correct… It will increase the divorce rate, and it could even be “not male-friendly” depending on how you define “friendly”… I mean, it does take away rights from men, doesn’t it? (You know, like the right to beat your wife and still keep her prisoner)

Yes, he could be right about the prediction, but not in the suggestion that that makes the bill “unnecessary.” Or perhaps that’s not what he was suggesting, but then he’s still wrong to claim that a predicted rise in the divorce rate is a reason not to pass the bill, since the increase would be because women were able to divorce men who beat them up.

Ah, yes, a country with a “Council of Islamic Ideology”, i.e. dogmatic watchdogs who have power over the elected representatives and whose role is to limit the exercise of any real democracy within an area compatible with theocracy… I see that Iran and Saudi Arabia aren’t the only ones who came up with that kind of clever invention.

The idea that a bill against Domestic violence is not “male-friendly” should be insulting to men, but I guess some of the extreme religious leaders actually think that horrible behavior is perfectly okay. The continuation of every marriage possible shouldn’t be considered more important than protecting people from violence. I’ll take increased divorce and less domestic violence instead of the opposite any day.

Sharmin, I certainly find the notion that condoning violence against women is “male friendly” insulting. I care about women and don’t want them to be beaten by their POS husbands. In the interests of accuracy they should really refer to the bill as being not “scumbag friendly”.

It’s too bad that the current President (widower of Benazir Bhutto) seems powerless to carry forward Bhutto’s comparatively more secular/liberal agenda. I don’t have my finger on the pulse of Pakistan, but from the little I gather there seems to be no loud counter voice to the rising militantism there. And therefore no real check on faith-based ideology.

Oh, and PS: I see that the pattern is for full names, so unlike w/earlier posts, I’ve added my full name to this one. Thanks for a good discussion!

It seems to me that as long as the men are in power there and want to stay in power at all costs, anything even slightly perceived or rationalized as ‘male unfriendly’ will to be denied. Not surprising, really, i.e. those who have the power (however it is acquired or maintained) are always reticent (!) to give it up… no matter whom it harms. Cynical? Yes, from experience.